Posted on 06/10/2008 8:51:53 AM PDT by abb
Thanks for post #36. Good for you.
I was thinking the other day - Jerry Lee Lewis married a girl who was 13, remember? And he was an adult. Her parents consented. There are so many teenagers having babies. Why did they target these FLDS people with such a vengeance - and all on a false report?
Where have they stored the “tank”?
The news guy calls the FLDS children “polygamous children”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoeYQmwmN-Y
My immediate reaction to that comment by Perry was, "And the hell with the kids, too!" If not one of these involved states can find a way to begin prosecuting these lawbreakers, then shame on them.
Texas, e.g., has a law against polygamy which includes those who present themselves as married to more than one spouse. The FLDS men fall into that category since it's no secret that they indulge in "celestial wives" and procreate with them. That charge, alone, shouldn't be impossible to prove.
Probably where it belongs - in a rail yard, acting as a yard-dog.
I may have mentioned it before, but I believe that is true - if you present yourself as married, in TX, you are.
Makes polegamy a lot easier to prove, if still correct.
You walzed away from "the ten-yo thing" rather quickly...almost like there are more important matters to discuss. UCANSEE2 posts that a number of girls under the age of 18 living on the Ranch were pregnant or had given birth; both interviewed girls and adults considered no age to young for a girl to be spiritually married, and the Ranch's religious leader, "Uncle Merrill", had the unilateral power to decide when and to whom they would be married.
While I'm aware that I am copying from UCANSEE2's post, it apparently needs to be repeated.
Do you reject this information, despite the fact that many who have first-hand experience have exposed these actions? Is your outrage limited to only 10-year-old girls?
"They" did not "kidnap" anyone. That's your word. If there was sufficient evidence that your neighbors were abusing their children, I "think" you would agree that these children must be removed for their own protection. Would you describe that as kidnapping?
Please don't bring up the hoax phone call. Sometimes things are a blessing in disguise. The governments of these states are not naive as to what this fundamentalist cult is about. Warren Jeffs is in prison...a good indication that all is not on the up-and-up with the whole cult.
ONE underage girl has been enjoined from returning to the ranch, not “a number of them.” ONE.
CPS claimed there were 36 - 31 were adults, one has a restraining order, one is not a mother and has never been pregnant, I don’t know the status of the other three.
So who is waltzing? You are repeating CPS lies that have been proven lies, in court.
And you are repeating lies.
Now, can you show me a warrant, that allowed any TX authority, to take any adult into custody, in this case? Waiting....waiting...
Oh, no such thing exists? Kidnapping, you know. 31 cases of it, with enhancements for “while armed”, and “under color of law.”
31 adult women removed from there homes without warrant, or justification in law, two while pregnant. Maybe that is 33 case, depends on TX law.
But kidnapping it is.
Of course, I will back off completely, and apologize for my rudeness, if you can link a warrant that said TX can arrest/detain/whatever all pregnant women about to give birth.
Or even a warrant that said TX could detain the 37-yo, who presented both a valid DL and BC, while TX CPS claimed she was 17. And then admitted in court, that she was in fact, 37 at the time they kidnapped her.
Anytime you find that warrant, please post a link.
Actually I did read them.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2028875/posts?page=40#40
... has the exact same opinion you posted. You’re proving your manners with every post.
“The ten-yo thing is just sick, I agree...Now, back on topic...”
Yes, but only part of it is applicable. That case was one of rape, and I don’t think that rape is the right word for the YFZ Ranch situation.
From what the reports really indicate, this will all done with decorum and tradition.
The mother of the ‘child’ was blessed if the Prophet chose one of her keep.
The mother could decide if the ‘child’ was ready for entry into celestial marriage.
Saying no would become very difficult to do.
After all, it was the word of god, through the Prophet.
The men of the YFZ Ranch are mostly devoted, faithful, God-fearing people. I imagine that taking on a new bride, at the orders of Warren Jeffs, are done in a very puritanical setting, and way, and may even involve a lack of privacy. They have always been taught that doing it this way was ordained by God. There is no evil in these men.
The Loyal Inner Circle members had to know what the game was. They had proven themselves worthy of total loyalty to Warren Jeffs. They have sold their souls to a mortal, for personal gain. They ‘know’ they are breaking the law, in some instances, and refuse to follow the law.
The whole point of the 10 year old, was that if the YFZ Ranch rule or Warren Jeffs rule, is that a child can undergo celestial marriage upon menstruation, then we have a case of that occurring as early as 10.
The law does not say that menstruation can be used to judge whether sex is legal, but a specific age.
Therein lies the problem.
The faithful believe that Warren Jeffs DOCTRINES trump Texas Law and the Constitution of the United States.
That is why Texas is having to deal with this as a group, and since that group is a religion, then it seems that is when things get really ugly. (if you look at history)
Which is really, really , ironic.
: )
“But kidnapping it is.”
Then all 31 are free to file kidnapping charges.
Of course, there is the alternative. It may be the FBI that files kidnapping charges against someone.
You just never know.
“the earlier post was to the DISSENTING opinion, mine was to the majority opinion.”
True. But wouldn’t one want to compare all the evidence, and not just the part the one agrees with?
It all boils down to this: They understood the complexity of the situation, and the confusion.
However, there is no provision in the statute for taking all the children, in this situation, only the pubescent females.
CPS and the Judge, erred on the side of safety of all the children. OH, MY, GOD.
They will be relentlessly hounded and punished for doing so.
What a strange world we live in.
Are you confusing the dissenting Texas Supreme Court opinion with that of the majority? The rulings of the Appeals Court and the Texas Supreme Court were that there was insufficient evidence to take ANY of the children who were the subject of the appeal. Judge Walther recognized that this decision applied to ALL the children since the evidence was the same for all of them.
“Are you confusing the dissenting Texas Supreme Court opinion with that of the majority? “
To do so is blind democracy. That is so many are asking for, and don’t see it.
Blind democracy. Majority rules, no matter what. Anybody that disagrees will be thrown out.
So they thought that the CPS and LE would have time to conduct further investigation, and should have found a way to leave the kiddies there. But under supervision.
I don't believe the meaning of the higher courts' decisions was that the CPS or the lower court judge MUST or even SHOULD require supervision, but simply that it was within the law for them to do so.
The expectation should have been that any such decision should be based on evidence and consideration of each case individually. Even here Judge Walther continued to engage in the "one size fits all" approach that has already created such a mess.
“I don’t believe the meaning of the higher courts’ decisions was that the CPS or the lower court judge MUST or even SHOULD require supervision, but simply that it was within the law for them to do so.”
Accepted.
They left it up to Judge Walther, and she ordered supervision, IIRC.
They are EVIL!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.